413 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

davoodoo, on 04 August 2016 - 02:26 AM, said:

To make lbx worth anything.

If you couple it with armor piercing ac10 or precision ac10 or hell even incendiary ac10(imo worth extra ton)
There would be place for both and maybe ppl would actually pick ac10 over uac5 99% of time.

It wont make current LBX worth anything, since you didn't offer any change to the regular LBX (the spread version). I shouldn't remind you that the whole thing started because current LBX is a sub par weapon.

[davoodoo]

El Bandito, on 04 August 2016 - 02:31 AM, said:

It wont make current LBX worth anything, since you didn't offer any change to the regular LBX (the spread version). I shouldn't remind you that the whole thing started because current LBX is a sub par weapon.

It wont make cluster ammo good because its just inferior due to mechanics. But it will save weapon itself and at least bandaid fix long lasting problem of no specialty ammo because no ammo switching which could potentially save more weapons from uselessness.

Cluster ammo is doomed becuase it offers no benefit over regular slugs, even if you made it into cerppc then why not just take regular ac make it full dmg into part you hit.
To fix cluster ammo you would like i said need to make it stupidly powerful to the point where nothing else is worth using or rework crits entirely.

Edited by davoodoo, 04 August 2016 - 03:04 AM.

[Koniving]

Yeonne Greene, on 02 August 2016 - 01:45 PM, said:

I see your post ahead of mine and I'll give you a decent response later ( I've had it with trying to do it on my phone), but I will put it out there right now that I find all of the technical (and a lot of the story) fluff in BT to be hot garbage, and I find MWO's implementations to be a total snore.

Alright, I was pretty busy yesterday so I hadn't had the chance to post this yet. I've only glanced/skimmed over early parts of your newest post and Strum's direct reply and so there's maybe one or two small edits in here to acknowledge that.
I'll reply to the newest stuff as soon as I can. I used specific names rather than "You".

My post from yesterday, written on an Android so please forgive any 'out of place' words. Remember all day references are relative, I wrote this yesterday about the day before.

------------------------------------------

Alrighty before I get to replying, I want to get this out as I wrote it in the parking lot outside of work while waiting for my M.o.D to show up and unlock the door.

Last night I was waiting for someone to challenge the idea, the reasons we'll get to in a moment. Then Yeonne stepped up to the plate. I was waiting for Yeonne to realize we were both describing Canister rounds of tanks loaded with explosives rather than traditional buckshot. Though I may have missed if Yeonne had already realized this or not. It is true this alone doesn't preclude fragmentation in the barrel or at any point after the barrel (which Yeonne was going for within the barrel while I was going for a post-barrel version to make them better capable of being good and useful in MWO). What it does leave into question is if it fragments before leaving the barrel what prevents the explosive sub-munitions from destroying the barrel? And the uncanny accuracy. I was really hoping for counter arguments to explain these.

He did realize I was using Airburst style canister munitions as an example of a better explaining the otherwise impossible long range accuracy and lack of wide spread secondary damage reports caused by the "blast" spreading out. However I wasn't intending to actually mean Airburst munitions, just a delayed fragmentation canister full of explosive sub-munitions or explosive pellets akin to shotgun analogs of Dragon's Breath or "Frag-shot" (for lack of knowing a better name for it), which admittedly strike me as similar to Air Burst, so perhaps more like this two stage missile as I originally thought of with a far simpler design (Second version created in Kerbal Space Program; but more of a 'bullet' fired and then the rest) or this peculiar but very "MWO-feasible" design... The cluster-missile is definitely what I was thinking of but in 'canister bullet' form. We'll set that aside and come back to it.

So that long range yet incredible accuracy seems to have the same logic as sniping with a shotgun. Which I do confess I am guilty of. I was waiting and really hoping for an argument to show how it would work realistically and still manage to be within the attributes of the rules. This is why I gave the comment that "someone was thinking" when DWW saw what I was getting at and introduced it more directly. So without a counter-argument having been presented as of when I wrote this, I will now provide it in support of the regular shotgun explanation:

"This lack of inaccuracy and spread into other hexes can also be explained within the same rules in that the spread never goes beyond 30 meters wide." I was really eager to get counter-arguments like this to help get my Gnoggin rolling but I was left with a bit of disappointment at least up until I went to bed and without further motivation I was left with no new ideas. (Edit: Strum appears to have found an optional rule I wasn't aware of which covers it, too. Providing another good counter-argument which supports the 'from-the-barrel-fragmentation' method of shotgun.)

Anyway I thought of that counter this morning. We can now take a combination of what was said by Strum and Yeonne and said by myself just now and put them together. This conjures up a feasible explanation for LB-X as a standard boring shotgun with "Frag" style ammo as the ammo is still explosive on impact (there is no debating the element of the sub-munitions themselves being explosive.)

Now we have a feasible argument for them being canister shells which could fragment immediately like Yeonne was saying that meets the fluff and the tabletop rules, going beyond PGI's oversimplified "herp! It's a shotgun!!" mechanic which leaves the possibility of missing targets completely.

So back to when DWW saw what I was getting at. He chose the delayed detonation explanation rather than the other possible ones I was seeking from Yeonne, as it also makes sense.

Now after reading Stein's posts twice I thought the idea was shut down due to the economics, buuut... The financials appear to support the possibility of advanced tech in munitions. First we have the fact that LB-X cluster ammo is ungodly expensive in comparison. A ton of 10 ratings of LB-10X "standard" or "Slug" ammo costs 2,000 more than a ton or 10 ratings of AC/10 ammo (I say ratings because lore-wise the shot count can be anything depending on the weapon variant). The LB-10X Cluster-shot Ammo is 12,000 more than LB-X slugs, that's 14,000 more than regular AC/10 ammo. Expensive bullets, let's put it this way: The (2010 USD cost) of that single ton of ammo is 160,000 USD (compared to 3052 Cbills; source Sarna.net)! Holy ****! That is a lot compared to a normal canister/shotgun shell for a tank-like weapon like the M1028 canister tank cartridge which is stated to be a unitary cost of $1,600 USD [this is a 'production unit cost', which fails to explain how many cartridges are produced per unit of order). A lot! And compared to AC/10 (HEAP; High Explosive Armor Piercing) ammo in USD: $48,000 USD.

Battletech the PC game (It's been a month or so since I read it, under their ask the devs) even stated having the issue of with a gun nearly extinct in 3025, who would be producing it's advanced Cluster-shot? So I'm thinking that sure there could be a markup but even in later years of Battletech, the price doesn't reflect it. This has left me to wonder what is so advanced about a simple shotgun, even if oversized? Which to paraphrase Yeonne, "doesn't preclude the possibility" that these could still fragment after leaving the barrel in a delayed detonation.

Also larger caliber and advanced accurate range, since girth or thickness clearly isn't enhanced as their sizes can be smaller than standard autocannons equivalents (as mentioned in an edit on my previous post), it must be longer bullets with more propellant (this opposes statements I was led to believe that LB-X weapons use standard AC rounds and is supported by the higher cost, LB-X really do fire "Slugs" after all and I was wrong about this). ACs are known for high recoil or high rate of fire (strangely not both but understandable) and for less propellant than traditional canons like mech Rifles. Thus, potentially slower bullets explaining the inferior range issue that ACs may have and this merge of autocannons and mech Rifles technology in the form of the LB-X has produced yet another possible solution for MWO's crappy shotgun issue:
Increase speed by Russ's favorite 50% (I would say 25% is overkill but it is Russ, he loves 50%) and double the amount of "pellets" at half their damage (or for the LOLs, 0.6 damage) in order to better capture the secondary munitions exploding.
Bam.

This addresses more propellant than ACs, better covers 'secondary explosions' by having better shot coverage (I'm sick of firing at something at just under 700 meters in some mechs and missing the target completely, "3x" range for the IS LB-10X is worthless if you can miss the target entirely at under 2x. This is only occuring on specific mechs). And finally the damage balances it out, the slight increase for the lols could just help counter the lost damage potential.

Debating is fun because it identifies both causal factors and the root cause of a problem and seeks solutions. By having a debate over what the LB-X is, we have learned some things about it and how to address some issues. Furthermore we bring further credit to ourselves if PGI is looking so long as the debate remains civil and brings about a conclusion that can be agreed upon which others can support.

Such a thing, also sometimes called impromptu brainstorming, could possibly result in a moderator saying, "I like this", which leads to the CM coming and saying "This may have merit", which in turn may get a developer's eye when turned in as a report and may get "Can we do this?" And possibly, just maybe... "Let's make this happen."

--------------
Again will read/respond to the new stuff a bit later.

(Edit: I know I said it was impossible for the shotgun to have that long range accuracy, I was kind of hoping for a "Challenge Accepted!" sort of thing to show me how.)

Edited by Koniving, 04 August 2016 - 04:03 AM.

[SMDMadCow]

El Bandito, on 04 August 2016 - 02:24 AM, said:

That's just silly. Why should PGI create a standalone slug firing LBX, while AC10 exists? It would be redundant.

Same reason clans have a standard ac selection even though it shouldnt exist?

I wouldnt mind seeing cluster and slug as ammo selections with us being able to designate which bin gets used first.

*also, not redundant, it would make LBX an upgrade to the AC, which it IS until specialty ammo arrives.

Edited by SMDMadCow, 04 August 2016 - 06:19 AM.

[El Bandito]

SMDMadCow, on 04 August 2016 - 06:17 AM, said:

Same reason clans have a standard ac selection even though it shouldnt exist?

I wouldnt mind seeing cluster and slug as ammo selections with us being able to designate which bin gets used first.

*also, not redundant, it would make LBX an upgrade to the AC, which it IS until specialty ammo arrives.

No, that is not the same. True, CACs shouldn't exist, but that was when PGI actually wanted to fix LBX and gave us CACs as placeholders. CACs works like CUACs, but without the double tap. And does IS already have regular ACs without the double tap? YES. Which is why standalone slug firing LBX is redundant for IS, especially since PGI had given up on the select ammo idea.

Edited by El Bandito, 04 August 2016 - 06:25 AM.

[SMDMadCow]

El Bandito, on 04 August 2016 - 06:23 AM, said:

No, that is not the same. True, CACs shouldn't exist, but that was when PGI actually wanted to fix LBX and gave us CACs as placeholders. CACs works like CUACs, but without the double tap. And does IS already have regular ACs without the double tap? YES. Which is why standalone slug firing LBX is redundant for IS, especially since PGI had given up on the select ammo idea.

But it is, the cAC wieghs the same and has the same crits as the cLBX. This effectively makes the cAC the 'slug' version of the cLBX, since PGI has decided that all non lbx clan acs shoot in 3 round burst.
A stand alone LBX slug shooter is not redundant - its an upgrade since it weighs a ton less.

I still think they can pull off the differing ammo by allowing the player to select which ammo bins get used in which order - the game already does this in the background.

[YourSaviorLegion]

"I can't use this weapon effectively so it must be bad"

[Deathlike]

YourSaviorLegion, on 04 August 2016 - 07:08 AM, said:

"I can't use this weapon effectively so it must be bad"

That is hardly the case.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

YourSaviorLegion, on 04 August 2016 - 07:08 AM, said:

"I can't use this weapon effectively so it must be bad"

It used to be funny, but now its kinda old. This argument has been brought up so many times now.

People can use the weapon effectively and do well with it, but its a worse weapon than alternatives. Its like how some people can do good in a Mist Lynx but its not a great mech. Or how someone can do fine with a single AC5 when two AC5s would be better.

The weapon is bad because its bad, not because it can't be used effectively.

[Y E O N N E]

@Koniving:

I think you and I were out of phase, talking past each other as we saw something in each others' statements that wasn't part of the intent.

I really wasn't trying to say anything much about how we could fit the LB-X to lore. What I was saying is that the cluster munitions as currently implemented in MWO are a reasonable translation of how they work in TT if that's your thing. The spread improves to-hit
chance like it should, it doesn't dump all of the damage into one place, and it deals full damage all the way out to 540 meters (which is fine if you accept that PGI's interpretation for accuracy penalty in a game with aimed shots and no recoil is to have damage falloff, and if you consider missed pellets past 540 meters are just as likely in TT). The caveat is that the spread is slightly too wide in this game and that the gun doesn't deal enough damage in some way to compensate for the sub-optimal nature of unfocused damage in MWO. The lore only came into it because there's nothing in there said it can't be a shotgun-operation; only the TT rules make that implication since they require you to use Cluster Hits no matter what range you fire from, but to me that's an oversight unique to TT and not gospel for all of BT.

As for what would be advanced about a shotgun, well, there's the targeting system for one. Two, assuming it uses an automated variable choke, you have the mechanism itself plus the need for specialized ammunition that avoids damaging it. Three, to get the same accuracy and precison out of this smooth-bore weapon with slug as the presumably-rifled AC/10, you need to engineer a likely fin-stabilized, discarding sabot HEAP round (I would take this opportunity to point out that the 120 mm gun on the M1 Abrams is a smooth-bore weapon). And because in my head the LB fires single rounds and thus must deal more damage in that single round, you need more advanced propellants and/or cartridge design to reach damaging velocities with both solid and cluster types without increasing weight, otherwise this would be a Rifle. While the logic is screwy from a realism standpoint, I assume ACs whittle away at armor, and Rifles suck because ACs do their whittling with multiple rounds of what would otherwise be the same ammunition employed by Rifles. The LB-X is a paradigm shift back to having single-shot capabilities with its superior internal and external ballistics.

Finally, normal ACs with flak ammo...basically a poor man's LB-X with cluster against aero. Flechette against infantry.

SMDMadCow, on 04 August 2016 - 06:17 AM, said:

Same reason clans have a standard ac selection even though it shouldnt exist?

I wouldnt mind seeing cluster and slug as ammo selections with us being able to designate which bin gets used first.

*also, not redundant, it would make LBX an upgrade to the AC, which it IS until specialty ammo arrives.

I would point out that the makers of BT realized that they messed up badly with the LB-10X when they reduced its slots and weight requirements relative to the standard AC/10 while also giving it longer range. Notice how it is the only LB-X AC that has those resource requirement reductions. Even the Clan version does not weigh less than the Clan Ultra (which just emphasizes how ridiculously light Clan Ultras are).

They attempted to balance this with cost, but that does nothing to mitigate the superior capability on the field.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 04 August 2016 - 08:47 AM.

[Blind Baku]

Xetelian, on 04 August 2016 - 12:54 AM, said:

You PRO-LBX users need to learn how to use a REAL weapon. I can put up 1400+ damage with 4 LBX10s on a DWF but that doesn't mean I did anything meaningful. You may be seeing damage done as a sign of greatness but it isn't all about how much damage you did when you could have killed 7+ mechs with that damage and didn't.
...
Don't put 2 LBX cannons on anything, and certainly don't take 22 tons of ballistics on a mech when you can't also take an XL engine. You are seriously bad at building MADs if you do.

Yeah, but I can kill 7 mechs and do 1k damage with dual LBX... regularly. Granted it isn't in the MAD, it's on a RFL.

[EvilCow]

I like the discussion about all the possible LBX implementations and improvements. There are a lot of good ideas on how making it better/different/more-bt-like/more-realistic etc.

However, we will be already lucky if we can convince them to try something as simple as a small increase in damage and I don't think anybody really expect they will do changes because this thread.

[Mcgral18]

El Bandito, on 03 August 2016 - 11:07 PM, said:

Pretty sure LBX as well as MG criticals do extra damage to structures.

15% of Crit damage turns into Real damage.

Blind Baku, on 04 August 2016 - 08:43 AM, said:

Yeah, but I can kill 7 mechs and do 1k damage with dual LBX... regularly. Granted it isn't in the MAD, it's on a RFL.

"Regularly" seems unlikely

Unless you only play with Potatos, that can't regularly happen.

RFL with plenty of quirks, on top of that? You can't defend an entire weapon family due to quirks which few robots have. It's the MG/ old PPC fallacy again.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

Criticals dont do any extra dmg to

Actually, they do as a critical hit inflicts 15% of the damage as additional structure damage. That's why a dual Gauss hit to the head can one-shot it- the second Gauss hits structure (30 damage to a fully armored head leaves 3 structure), and a double or triple critical hit deals the additional 3 damage needed to destroy the head. Critical hits ignore whether part of the damage hit armor so a PPC can penetrate for fractional structure damage but will still deal it's full 10-point crit (+1.5/3/4.5 structure damage on a single/double/triple crt) to equipment regardless.

LB-X pellets and a few other weapons deal a bit more crit damage than regular but it doesn't really inflict noticeable damage until you hit weapons dealing 10+ damage in one go. Thus the "IT DOES ADDITIONAL CRITICAL DAMAGE" meme for LB-X.

Quote

I would point out that the makers of BT realized that they messed up badly with the LB-10X when they reduced its slots and weight requirements relative to the standard AC/10 while also giving it longer range. Notice how it is the only LB-X AC that has those resource requirement reductions.

Clanners were originally going to be using Star League era tech with a few tweaks, but they ended up giving them an entirely different set of construction rules and weapons late in development. That worked well.

Edited by Brain Cancer, 04 August 2016 - 10:29 AM.

[Blind Baku]

Mcgral18, on 04 August 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

15% of Crit damage turns into Real damage.



"Regularly" seems unlikely

Unless you only play with Potatos, that can't regularly happen.

RFL with plenty of quirks, on top of that? You can't defend an entire weapon family due to quirks which few robots have. It's the MG/ old PPC fallacy again.

I've mentioned that before. USE the mechs that make the LBX GOOD as the template. ~20%cooldown + ~10% Spread decrease.

And you want screen shots? I can grab them. As long as I don't get out of position first thing, and survive to the brawl 800-1k average, in a 2LBX 2MPL RFL. Yeah, Tier 3 potato I know, not l33t T1, but I've gone in group ques against good T1 12 mans, and did surprisingly well for a pug in a 3 man group stuck with other pugs.

Edited by Blind Baku, 04 August 2016 - 12:34 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Blind Baku, on 04 August 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

I've gone in group ques against good T1 12 mans, and did surprisingly well for a pug in a 3 man group stuck with other pugs.

What good 12 man did you do well against?

[Blind Baku]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 04 August 2016 - 12:35 PM, said:

What good 12 man did you do well against?

Aces Wild [AW] I believe, I thought they did well enough for me to call them good when I saw them in the tourny. It wasn't MS or anything like that.

Question on the 15% damage transfer. Is that, in the case of the LBX 15% of 2 per pellet (Crit Damge) or 15% of 1 per pellet (base weapon damage)? And to pre-empt, I get that crits happen, per pellet so you're statistically never going to get a crit with every pellet etc... I just wanted to look at some probability and spreadsheet warrior it up. Also where is the note about the damage to structure, I was looking over the Wiki and couldn't find it.

Edited by Blind Baku, 04 August 2016 - 12:55 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Blind Baku, on 04 August 2016 - 12:37 PM, said:

Aces Wild [AW] I believe, I thought they did well enough for me to call them good when I saw them in the tourny. It wasn't MS or anything like that.

I'm sure they are a decent bunch of people and I seem them frequently, but as far as difficulty factor when coming up against them...well...they are a team that even I would bring LB-X against without worrying.

The RFL-LK needs an additional 5% spread reduction. Rate of fire is good, extra pellet damage ( +0.15 per to start) and that would be exactly where the LB-10X should sit.

[El Bandito]

Blind Baku, on 04 August 2016 - 08:43 AM, said:

Yeah, but I can kill 7 mechs and do 1k damage with dual LBX... regularly. Granted it isn't in the MAD, it's on a RFL.

That's with heavy quirk crutch. The weapon itself needs to be good. For example, I shouldn't argue that LRM15 is fine just because I am using it on my heavy quirked Awesome-8R.

Edited by El Bandito, 04 August 2016 - 04:13 PM.

[Blind Baku]

Would it help if I mentioned I was running it not only on the LK but also ran it on the 3N when I needed to master, because the build transfers... I like it more than the AC10 option... it doesn't need to sacrifice speed or armor, and doesn't over heat as fast.

LBX needs love, I say cooldown and spread is [EDIT] a good place to start, test it that way, from there look at damage.

Edited by Blind Baku, 04 August 2016 - 05:43 PM.